Mike Tyson "weak" opposition

Haha, yes That's a typo. I should have wrote "fought" rather than "beat"

no who did Biggs or Bruno beat to become leading contenders or logical challenger status? If their challenge was not logical and the opponents they recently beat were not rated contenders then how can they themselves represent that status as key fights? Bruno was 0-1 in three years against rated fighters. Biggs 0-0.
Red Burman gave Joe Louis a good fight. Nobody remembers Tony Musto either. This is because of two counts, first nobody saw the film and secondly these guys were not exactly highly rated. So against Joe Louis key wins these title defences are about the same thing as Bruno and Biggs.

Thomas was 0-1 in two years against rated fighters.

Tony Tubbs was the most appalling challenger of all time. One win that was worth something for one year only, long ago. 0-1 in almost three years against rated fighters. He was out of shape, had a trainer walk out on him and deliberately blew a bonus to make weight just so he had an alibi ready.

four years later with better preparation, 6 comeback fights and a win over a relevant contender (Ray Mercer) Larry did indeed prove he still could perform at the highest level. Not against Tyson. Against Tyson Larry was 0-2 in three years.

how many fat challengers did Ali meet in the 1960s?

 

There's often some strong revisionism going on to boost the quality of Tyson's resume.
No one at the time was under any illusions that Tyson was mostly mopping up the declining remnants of a dire division. And to be fair to Tyson, he did it in style for a good run.

Since Tyson was commonly expected to reign for quite a few years longer than he infact did, no one at the time had the foresight to exaggerate the prowess of his opponents. But nowadays it is all the rage.

Michael Spinks is probably the only Tyson opponent of those years who's been most often UNDERvalued after the fact of his loss. But Spinks was never a convincing heavyweight so the value isn't exactly huge to start with.
Most of Tyson's other wins/opponents have been OVERvalued with the revisionism.
Sorry, Berbick, Smith and Tucker were some weak alphabet champions but 3 of the best men Tyson ever faced . Thomas was already over-the-hill, Biggs had struggled to arrive at 15-0, and Larry Holmes was just a shell of his former self.

Tyson beat them all, and clearly. Until he ran into James Douglas.

 

Let's be honest here, does anyone believe Douglas would beat Ali even if not in the best of form in the period of 64-67, he would have his head boxed off I'm afraid.

 

I wouldn't say Douglas really hit any harder than Ali, Ali had underrated power and definitely had enough pop to make a mess of Tyson and stop him.

 

There's no law that you'd have to beat rated fighters to become one. Cooney didn't before challenging Holmes, Mugabi neither (or a fringe contender, at best). Biggs was undefeated and had wins over past prime versions of Bey and Snipes, and beat Tillis before Tyson did. Bruno had KO'd Bugner, who was past it but had beaten Page. No great wins, but that many contenders have any.

And who were more deserving, besides possible 'Spoon?

And how does that contradict "a good fighter that was past his best"? And was there someone obviously more deserving?

**** no, he was not the worst ever. One of Frazier's challengers managed to get beat by Williams, almost ten years after he was gut shot and seven years after Ali decimated him. Tubbs was probably not in very good shape, but he he still had quality in him and would give a young Bowe double years later.

And how does anything you said contradict "tricky technician"?

He was also four years older when he came back again, with another inactivity under his belt. And most (me included) think he beat Spinks in the rematch.

I meant fat as in "unworthy challengers" and I think that Ali's 60's reign was very good as well. But if you want to pick that apart; London, Cooper and Williams are pretty easy targets. But just as with Tyson in the 80's, you'll be hard pressed to name a really deserving challenger that didn't get a shot.

 

Yes but you cannot convince anyone that the versions of Tubbs, Thomas, Holmes were worth anything with records of 0-1, 0-1 and 0-3 against rated guys over the last three years! Guys with that sort of record should not be allowed to fight champions. It's very poor matchmaking. In other eras contenders had to beat current rated guys or get dropped from the ratings.

It doesn't matter. An exhibition will never prepare an inactive fighter for a title fight. Joe Louis fought continuously in exhibitions during his retirement as undefeated champion and he also took a terrible pounding from Ezzard Charles when he came straight back into a title fight. Any challenger has no business in the ring without beating a leading contender.

You are confusing the Larry that Tyson fought with a version of Larry who deserved to be in a ring. Larry had no business being in the ring with a world level opponent after that kind of break from boxing.

yes let's look at Liston v Williams. Sonny knocked Williams out in two rounds and he also knocked Williams out in three rounds. After this Howard king lasted seven rounds with Liston in one fight. Nobody talks about that guy. The only relevance between Frank losing to Tyson when he was 0-1 against rated fighters is that big cat Williams was also 0-1 against rated fighters when Liston knocked him out. Where as when Bruno fought Lewis he was at least coming off wins over Pierre Coetzer and Truth Williams.

Bruno did better against Lewis than lot of fighters. Get this, the fact Bruno was beating good opponents at that time might have something to do with it. Fighters do better when their opposition is keeping them sharp. When Tyson fought Lewis he was not fighting good opponents.

I think you need to research the 1960s scene a bit more. In those days you had to beat a contender to get a rating and you had to keep beating rated opponents until the champ was ready to fight them otherwise a contender would slip out of the ratings. Patterson had to beat Chuvalo to get his shot and Chuvalo had knocked out Doug Jones who had given Ali his hardest fight up until then. Terrell beat Chuvalo, Jones and Machen. Mildenburger beat Folley. You need to look at what was going on in this era. It just did not wash that a champ fought a guy who could not or had not beat a contender before in those days.

Those guys were good guys at some point but how good were they while they were 0-1 in three years against rated opponents? Seems to me, the best time to beat those guys is when they are 0-1 or 0-2 against rated guys.

Orlin Norris did not find Tucker hard to beat and he was shorter than Floyd Patterson. Norris beat him twice even if the judges say he won one of those fights. Tucker really wasn't up to much. He was in form because he had at least beat Douglas. But nobody thought much of Douglas back then. And that's it. Compare him with Ernie Terell. Terrell was just as big and he beat better fighters than Tucker did.

stop right there. When Tubbs fought Bowe he was in better shape and more active than he was when he was deliberately sabotaging his own chances against Tyson. Remember also Tubbs vs Bowe was a lower scale, lower level fight. An old timer versus a prospect. It's like comparing Joey Maxim beating Patterson.

Tubbs was quite a good boxer apart from when he fought Tyson. He had his trainer walk out on him for Christ sake! Tubbs was the worst prepared challenger of all time. No other challenger was given a bonus to get in shape and deliberately ate more just to fail that bonus. He was a disgrace.

 

yes Tyson did beat what was around and he did do it good but I can't help thinking a lot of odds were stacked in Tysons favour. fighters were lined up in a particular order and the ones we thought were the better ones were actually the weakest and less prepared. Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Spinks and Douglas were really the most relevant opponents. Tubbs, Thomas, Holmes, Biggs and Bruno were really a smokescreen.

Was there one deserving challenger who did not get a shot? Yes there was. In hindsight A deserving fighter not given a shot was Tim Witherspoon. Tim was unbeaten during Tysons reign. He now says he threw the Smith rematch. If he did, and we can't prove a thing, with hindsight there is evidence the whole HBO tourney was orchestrated to crown Tyson and only Tyson as its eventual champion almost from the outset and certainly by 1986. If you recall The tournament started in 1985 but no actual unifications began until Witherspoon was out of the tournament.

 

You mean the same topsy turvy logic that saw Ali knock George Foreman out whilst the person that had Tyson reeling around the ring like an old drunk (Holyfield) couldn't even drop pensioner Foreman, I love that logic I do......

 

This content is protected

 

Tim deserved a shot and probably would have got one if not for King, but in no way was he an outstanding challenger like Langford or Wills. If he is the one that's missing, it's a pretty damn good reign.

 

Even if Terrible Tim had fought Tyson and beat him we would have still had every excuse under the sun for the upset and that is a certainty......

 

Landing a punch with a broken hand is not the best punch a fighter can throw, this is a fact son!!!